On 15/08/07, Ian Borchardt <iborchar_at_tMiYcIMWBAxCstDuY9q9JHXL1gdNphcdwXyH3OAnvpTZp6lmNyQRDr8wnuj5jNcSTBN6Y4IgU52FoWX6.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> As to the counter argument of changing the canon campaign: if the
> players can't change the campaign, can't leave their mark on it, then
> why are they playing in it at all? It is extremely unlikey that a
> group of players could seriously incovenience one of the epic
> characters (remember they didn't get where they were by being dumb and
> they have considerable resources to call upon, and failing that
> *running away to fight another day*). But if they do, they've
> _earned_ the change in the campaign.
I agree with this, and I am *also* always harping on at players to
"find another way" and attack an opponent's weaknesses not their
strengths. I would expect that having a list of itemised weaknesses
would make things a little too easy though. In HQ its not so much
about where the opponent's masteries are, as it is where they
*aren't*.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.